[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 [16:09] Aco

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 [16:09] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [16:09] Acol....what does ping/pong mean on the server? [16:10] Does it mean someone looks at your info? on nic? [16:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [16:15] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com) left #apologetics. [16:15] Neuron (binky@dave.voicenet.com) joined #Apologetics. [16:15] what verse was it that u cited? [16:15] PRO CHOICE!!!!!!! [16:15] thats nice, what verse was it that u cited? [16:15] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [16:16] It's the most famous verse in the Pro-choice lobby, mate! You know the one. [16:16] neuron please give me the refernce, Iwould like to see if it is inthe Bible [16:16] or not [16:16] +o Neuron [16:16] what verse? [16:16] ops are earned here, sorry [16:16] make me an op and i will tell you where [16:16] what verse? [16:16] yeah right [16:16] and my dog flies [16:17] i'm not going to even start this discussion if you uptight people are going to kick me [16:17] 1. I am not a fundamentalist [16:17] ok Iwillmake a deal with you [16:17] redleg (redleg@ascend04-19.icanect.net) joined #Apologetics. [16:17] what does it take to "earn" an op, Acolyte? Do i have to take a vow of chastity? [16:17] I won't kick u if you won't use vulgar words [16:17] redleg (redleg@ascend04-19.icanect.net) left #Apologetics. [16:17] or blasphemous statements, sound fair? [16:17] Neuron only those who hold certian beliefs are allowed tobe ops here [16:18] ut anyhow, u are pro-choice, why? [16:19] ut anyhow, u are pro-choice, why? [16:19] i feel that no one has the right to tell me what to do with MY body. And Pro-choice advocates do not go around bombing clinics and shooting people [16:19] ok, so you think the unborn entity is your body like your toe or finger then? [16:19] you pro-life people and your fanaticism is the MAIN cause of what we're seeing today. [16:20] Who said Iw as pro life? [16:20] I did not say either way [16:20] neuron but even if that is the case, I would like tolearn what your view is and why you hold it [16:20] I didn't say that. You are clogging the lines with hyperbole, Acolyte [16:20] Neuron huh? what hyperbole? [16:21] Neuron, do you think that the unborn entity is part of your body? [16:21] Why do i hold my view? You want to know why I hold my view? Because I have firsthand experience dealing with religious fundamentalist FREAKS that used to line up outside the clinic and harrass those who passed by [16:22] ok, that is not a logical argument, if you don't have any logical arguments for your position, I guess there is othing to talk about [16:22] Nueron I am not a Fundy for one [16:23] nueron secondly, ppl used to think Blacks in the US were religious freaks, just because someone is a freak or non-freak does not amke their argument true or false [16:23] I am interested in truth, can you show me why you think that the unborn entity is part of your body if you indeed believe that to be the case. [16:23] ? [16:25] Neuron, why do u think that the unborn entity is part of the body of the woman? [16:25] you place too much weight on the human soul, the notion that what is created out of natural biological processes is possessed of a soul, and can feel pain. I have a natural view, that we are animals, and religion tries to deny us that realisiation [16:25] Neuron have I even mentioned a soul? no [16:25] Neuron, seocndly I asked a question, please answer what I asked [16:26] Neuron, why do u think that the unborn entity is part of the body of the woman? [16:26] then where are you going with your question to me? I do in fact believe that the unborn entity is merely a part of the body [16:26] Neuron thenI am confused, perhaps you can help to clarify the issue for me [16:27] Neruon if I swollow a gem or diamond, and it is IN me, is it part of my body? [16:27] yes or no? [16:28] the unborn entity is part of the body because it came about as a result of teh natural biological process that takes place INSIDE the human female body. If you swallow a gem, then that is something which has nothing to do with the se processes [16:28] Neruon fine, ia gree, but is there a difference between being IN a body and being part of that body? [16:28] yes or no? [16:28] sure there is [16:28] ok [16:29] neuron, then I have somethng else to ask [16:29] shoot [16:29] neuron what sex is a body that carries a male child? [16:29] male or female or hermaphodite? [16:30] what sex is a body that carries a male child? That's female, last time i checked [16:30] which of the three, unless of course you can think of some other sex [16:30] oh no its not [16:30] think about it [16:30] the female body has a penis and vagina at the same time [16:30] its a hermaphodite [16:31] because the result of the biological process of conception does not affect the integrity of the biologcal being [16:31] the fetus is merely a PART of the womans body, hence the woman is not female [16:31] but during preganancy it is a hermaphodite, it has a poenis and vagina [16:31] but is the penis in a functional state? [16:31] neuron even if it is not functional, it still has both sex organs [16:32] and genes [16:32] and hormones [16:32] so when a woman is pregnant if she has a female she has two vaginas and 2 heads and 4 eyes etc [16:32] but biological designations are based on development of the sexual organs, and that doesn't meet the criteria [16:32] its just like her toe, its a aprt of her [16:33] neuron, perhaps it does not, but for the last 2 trimesters it does [16:33] neuron but it does have a brain and heart and hands and toes early one,hence the women has multiple features [16:33] one=on [16:33] bueron that seems rather illogical to me [16:34] that's getting into an area of debate, which i cannot claim to have any expertise in. However, i would probably agree that after a certain point, abortion becomes more of a sin [16:34] neuron just because it is connected to thge woman and aprt of the natural process does not make it PART of the woman [16:34] neuron it is simple logic,it has nothing to do with expertise [16:34] neuron, just because it is connected to the woman does not make it part of th woman. [16:35] neuron your arguments rests on a logical equivocation of terms, hence it is logicaly falalcious it seems to me [16:35] however, the pro-life lobby does not always make this distinction, and therefore i feel it is a reckless movement that does much harm [16:35] neuron what distinction is that? [16:35] more of a sin or is a sin? [16:35] between the developmental stages of the fetus. [16:36] at what point is abrotion a sin? 9 months? [16:36] 8 months? [16:36] 7 months? [16:36] how abut 6months? [16:36] should I keep going? [16:36] when? [16:36] pro-lifers make as much noise about first trimestre as they do the later stages. I feel the movement is hopelessly flawed by passion, and the failure to make a distinction. [16:37] perhaps, but please address the question [16:37] perhaps you said it is a sin at a certain satge, what stage is that? [16:37] what stage? [16:38] who knows? you can't tell me the answer any more than i could tell you. but there is a point, it does exist, and prolifers just seize on this to say that ANY fetus is past the crucial point [16:38] neuron perhaps I can tell you [16:38] pleas do [16:38] neuron perhaps I do know, I mean after all, youa re not psychic are you? [16:38] neuron well i thnk it is rather simple [16:38] what is a human being? [16:38] maybe you do know, but that's a bit presumptuous on your part. [16:38] has certain things [16:39] not if I am right it is not [16:39] neuron no more presumptious of youto presume that I DON'T know [16:39] how anyone could base their views, especially strong ones such as these, on pure speculation is beyond me [16:39] Humans have certain things, they have certan potentialities and cahracteristics [16:39] neuron logic is not speculation [16:39] neither is scietific evidence [16:40] I'm NOT presuming anything. That's the whole definition of presume - no one knows [16:40] let me make my case for a second ok? [16:40] neuron ok lets talk about that for a second [16:40] do you mean that no one CAN know or that no one DOES know? [16:40] which one? [16:40] see, i don;t agree with your assessment of humans. I agree we are special, masters of our world, but we are very much animals [16:41] neuron, well lets deal with this first, then we can talk about being animals, monism vs dualism [16:41] do you mean that no one CAN know or that no one DOES know? [16:42] i mean that no one can know, at least [16:42] neuron why? [16:42] neuron what is it about human nature that you are aware of that prevents this knowledge from being obtainable? [16:44] Neuron bascially what do you know that makes it possible to know that no one can know the truth about this topic. [16:44] ? [16:44] Petrel (petrel@ joined #apologetics. [16:44] hullo petrel [16:44] hullo [16:45] Neuron how do you know that no one can know? [16:45] neuron that is what I am asking [16:46] nueron I am waiting for your answer [16:46] Neuron (binky@dave.voicenet.com) left #Apologetics. [16:46] guess he could not answer it. [16:46] or she rather =============================================================== [18:58] Plover (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics. [18:59] Apologize [19:00] hi plover [19:00] s'ok [19:00] hehehe [19:00] So someone here [19:01] jus me [19:01] how are ya? [19:01] ok, what do you do here [19:02] are you an apologeticist? [19:02] Yes, perhaps [19:02] well there are ussually [19:02] for the Pharisees [19:02] ops here that are professors and such [19:03] or are in collage for aplolgetics [19:03] fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca8-16.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [19:03] So maybe they know something [19:03] Hi, you'all! [19:04] CTCP SOUND: arethere.wav You there??? from fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca8-16.ix.netcom.com) to #apologetics [19:04] Well... [19:04] hi fat! [19:04] Are we lagging? [19:05] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:05] hi everyone [19:05] XP:Hi, finally some people here! [19:05] so are you christians? [19:05] im not trained [19:05] No [19:05] yeah. trained? [19:05] Speak my son! I'll help you. [19:05] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( Xpressor )))))))))))))))))))) [19:06] but i will try to help [19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( fatjac )))))))))))))))))))) [19:06] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [19:06] Hi all [19:06] ned can help [19:06] {{{{ned and sioux}}}}}}}}}}}}}} [19:06] What's the subject? [19:06] Action: ^Sioux gives a big hug to ((((((( Xpressor ))))))) [19:06] that figure ... [19:06] whats the issue? [19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( Xpressor )))))))))))))))))))) [19:06] im just about to run out of time! [19:07] There is an omnipotent, omniscient, personal, loving being responsible for the universe. [19:07] <^Sioux> so...re boot! [19:07] plover may have one for you ned! [19:07] yes, Were there 2 Isaiahs [19:07] Plover....may I be of some help? [19:08] Are you christian? [19:08] the tapes will be in the mail monday!!!!!! [19:08] Plover...are you a Christian? [19:08] No [19:08] Kool EXP...No rush :) [19:08] I think this apolobot thing is great. Is there anyway to copy that to the christian channel? [19:09] Plover....what is your worldview??..are you an atheist? [19:09] Jewish, agnostic [19:10] Anyone belive in Sole Fide ? [19:10] Plover....so...how would you phrase your belief about the existance of God? [19:10] "??" [19:11] Plover....Fiedism is not a Biblical view [19:11] "By Faith ONLY" [19:11] Plover....so...how would you phrase your belief about the existance of God? [19:11] I lean towards atheism [19:11] ?? [19:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [19:12] So you are not Lutherian [19:12] can you explain for me..I dont know you :) [19:12] I lean towards atheism [19:12] ?? [19:12] I lean towards atheism [19:13] Plover....I asked for a statement about what you believe/base your Non belief on.... [19:13] a description is not a statement that tells me much...there are many views [19:13] Very complex subject, the evolution of religious thought [19:15] or any thought for that matter [19:15] BRB [19:15] PLover:Would you be interested in a philosophical proof for the existence of GOd? [19:16] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) got netsplit. [19:16] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) got netsplit. [19:16] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) got netsplit. [19:16] do you believe there is no God [19:16] Sure, but Ive probably already heard it [19:16] Not me, Z [19:16] X rather [19:16] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) returned to #Apologetics. [19:16] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) returned to #Apologetics. [19:16] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) returned to #Apologetics. [19:17] <^Sioux> woah [19:17] Plover I've broken it up in 6 parts. Anybody here object if I run it, or shall we go to chat. [19:17] i would im allways up for learnin [19:17] Are we laggin again? [19:18] Ok here we ggo! [19:18] id personally like to see it [19:18] If we examine the universe we find that everything that does exist might very well have not existed. i.e. We ourselves exist but might very well not have existed had not a man and woman met and mated. [19:18] re sioux! [19:18] Nothing therefore is the explanation of its own existence. In other words their existence in contingent upon something else. Each thing has existence and can pass on existence, but did not originate existence. [19:18] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com) joined #apologetics. [19:18] It is impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings, i.e. beings which are only receivers of existence and not originators. [19:18] re ned! [19:18] fatjac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [19:18] If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? If each being receives its existence from another how did existence get in the system at all? [19:18] We are driven then to see that contingent beings could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs from them by possessing existence in its own right. It does not have to receeive existence it simply has existence. [19:18] It is not contingent: It simply is. This is the Being we call God. [19:18] radio guys all over tonight...hmmmmmmmm... [19:18] That all folks [19:19] fatjac....hope i didn't chase you off!!! [19:19] Hope you're loggin PLover. [19:19] what is your reason for believing there is no God? [19:19] fatjac-are you saying that anything in the universe could not exist, and the universe would still exist? [19:20] Sorry very trite [19:20] hello Ned [19:20] im game but i prefer plover have his preference [19:20] brb......I have a problem here [19:20] Arostotelian [19:20] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> Ned_away [19:21] C5:Sure. Many things no longer exist but the universe still exists. That does not mean though that the universe could not cease to exist. [19:21] Like the unmoved mover, very primitive [19:21] if the universe had no positive charged particles, would the universe be able to exist? [19:22] Action: C5H8O2 is checking what his nick is [19:22] Not in this form [19:22] PLover:Not Aristotlean, Scholastic. [19:22] Nick change: C5H8O2 -> EAC4105 [19:23] PLover:So cite your objections. [19:23] Whats Scholastic? [19:23] PLover:Thomas Aquinas. [19:24] ITs just the same old, first cause argument, in different dress [19:24] Plover:Sooo? [19:24] is there a flaw in that arguement? [19:25] So the usual retort is skip a step and just say we always existed [19:25] Conservation of energy [19:26] PLover:Which begs the question. [19:26] What does it mean to say simply has existance? [19:26] You imply outside time? [19:27] and God is....outside of time.....God created time [19:27] I really don't think the problem is so much arriving at a Prime Mover. I think the problem is what have we found when we get there. What kind of being is this God? [19:28] Or what is Gd or what is it that exists [19:28] that begs the question....How BIG is God? [19:28] Plover:Has existence in ther sense that it need not receive existence. It is infinite existence. It cannot not exist. [19:28] If Gd exists He should reveil Hinself directly [19:29] of course...he did...Plover...in flesh and blood!!!!! [19:29] huh, outside time I think would be a better argument [19:29] Plover:So GOd's not running the universe the way you think He should? [19:29] True, f [19:30] Plover:Outside time? That's close enough. [19:30] But we dont need to assume it, conservation of energy is enough [19:31] are I just a shadow...or do I exist!!!! [19:31] like...ok...you're ignored me...I get the hint [19:31] Plover:Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'conservation of energy', but where did the energy come from? You still have to reach the end of the chain. [19:31] Sorry dont mean to ignore you, New [19:32] well..thank you Plover [19:32] newsong:Sorry, been too busy typing. How you been? [19:32] fine...feeling somewhat ignored...however... [19:32] Action: fatjac Gives newsong a big sloppy kiss [19:32] thank-you....I think [19:32] You know how it is, I dont type that fast [19:32] anyhow..continue your agrument..... [19:33] Plover..you made a interesting statement earlier... [19:33] newsong:YOu're welcome....I think.. [19:33] plover i may have missed something..but have you always existed [19:33] Well where did the energy come from, I wish I could answer that conclucivly and win a Noble Prize [19:34] is that your arguement? [19:34] PLover:How about our 'uncaused cause'? [19:34] Plover....I believe your answer is in Genesis 1:1....now collect your prize [19:34] Perhaps the energy always existed [19:35] yeah-why is this uncaused cause differnet from anything else? since you said that everything has a cause, why is this an exception? [19:35] Plover:Many agnostics get this far and then refuse to grant God personality. [19:35] perhaps...as the scientists conquer the last hill of the question...why and how....they will reach the summit...and find God cheerfully sitting atop....welcoming...and saying..what took you so long [19:35] No I really dont think so, N, I will admit Gen. 1:1 is a very beautifull and simple passage [19:35] so simple....yet so profound!!! [19:35] EAC:This the exception. The one being who's existence is totally necessary. [19:36] The 1st 2 chapters of Gen. are 2 different sources edited together [19:36] it is clear [19:36] it is?...Plover [19:37] are you the energy? [19:37] I appears so [19:37] which seems to contradict the first part of your argument... [19:37] Plover:Answer me this. When you think of the concept God don't you imagine a kindly old man like Uncle Louie??? [19:37] Ned_away (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) left #apologetics. [19:37] f, no I dont think so [19:37] Eac:No, I think is nessecitated by the first part. [19:38] Plover:You sure? I know I have a tendency to do that even though I know it's absurd. [19:38] plover are you saying there is no created thing ...no tempral ..all is eternal [19:38] How about the Enuma Elish, new [19:39] PLover: Huh?? [19:39] im just tryin to understand whats being meant [19:39] "everthing that does exist might very well have not existed" why is god an exception? if he is something that exists, then it would be logical for you to say it would be posssible for the univ erse to be, w/o god [19:39] I saying I dont know, but we cant say it must be a certain way [19:39] plover are you saying there is no created thing ...no tempral ..all is eternal [19:39] Action: newsong hope you dudes stay on for awhile...newsong is busy over at another channel and will come by shortly [19:39] Babylonian Creation [19:40] Winks (heinrich@ip-pdx08-22.teleport.com) joined #Apologetics. [19:40] heya winks [19:40] Eac:Sorry, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that God is only a part of the universe? [19:41] Winks (heinrich@ip-pdx08-22.teleport.com) left #Apologetics. [19:41] Action: newsong loves creation argument!!!!! [19:42] how does anything exist outside the universe? [19:42] so are you a naturalist? [19:42] E what is conscousness? [19:43] X we see that energy is conserved [19:43] a part of nature? [19:44] EAC:Why shouldn't anything exist outside of the universe? [19:44] Action: EAC4105 is sitting at the computer naked :-) [19:44] Eac:Keep both hands oon the keyboard you bad boy> [19:44] karen-3 (ajanssen@irv-ca12-17.ix.netcom.com) joined #Apologetics. [19:44] so all is nature ? [19:44] and nature is eternal? [19:44] Action: newsong covers EAC4105 with the righteouness of God....and shuts everone's eyes [19:44] what is the meaning of "outside the universe"? [19:44] plover are you a naturalist? [19:44] sorry i dont understand what your getting at by saying that [19:44] plover are you a naturalist? [19:44] Eac:The universe is hopelessly finite. It is made up of parts. Parts can come apart and be reassmbled as something else. [19:44] X, of course it seems strange to say the physical universe always existed [19:44] PRETTY MUCH I THINK THAT THE TERM "OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE" IS MEANINGLESS [19:45] damn caps [19:45] E, it is surely philosophical [19:45] hehehehe [19:45] offda...EAC...thought you were getting a little heated!!! [19:45] plover are you a naturalist? [19:46] EAC:In your experience you haven't seen anything else, right? [19:46] X, naturalist, a scientist you mean? [19:46] right [19:46] do you think that all is nature and was not created by a creator [19:46] EAC:But spiritual things do exist. Love, beauty, justice, truth. [19:47] x-yes [19:47] fat-exist as concepts. [19:47] X, I dont know, perhaps, I wont put may faith in something to speculative [19:47] at least not fully [19:48] was it created by radom chance? [19:48] EAC:Love is a little more than a concept, I think. [19:48] How should I know, Im not God [19:48] hmmm....so there is a God..Plover [19:48] hmmm...someone beyond..Plover [19:49] I think said, I dont know, Im not a hard nosed atheist [19:49] so your sayin that you just dont know? [19:49] X:If you examnine the universe you see that nothing happens randomly. [19:49] x-i dont know. the universe right now does not go on randomly. wether or not the universe, at the time of the big bang, could have gone on differently is a differnet question [19:49] right, I dont know but the evidence seems to point to religion being a human construct [19:50] EAC:When scientists say things happen randomly they mean they haven't figured out the cause and effect yet. [19:50] well if it is created without reson [19:51] fat, who says things happen randomly [19:51] fat (from a long time ago)-love is an emotion, and does seem to be caused by complex biochemistry [19:51] X:If everything else has a reason why jump to the conclusion the creation was without reason? [19:52] well if it is created without reason then we cant use logic to argue anything cuz our logic would be based soley on random chance [19:52] EAC:So that's what you call it! [19:52] X:True! [19:52] x-are you opperating under the assumption that everything has an eternal cause? if so, i have a question. [19:53] btw, i have to be leaving soon (lab closes) [19:53] Xpressor (kgb@slip4.worldaxes.com) left irc: Read error to Xpressor[slip4.worldaxes.com]: Connection reset by peer [19:54] Xpressor (kgb@slip4.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics. [19:54] Xpressor (kgb@slip4.worldaxes.com) left #apologetics. [19:54] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [19:54] Xpressor (kgb@slip4.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics. [19:54] zen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 [19:54] hey [19:54] dharma (stockjim@ joined #Apologetics. [19:54] x-did you get my last message? [19:54] EAC:Me to, also. Been fun though. [19:54] sorry where wre we [19:54] heya dharma [19:54] no [19:55] i dont think [19:55] Hey newsong catch you tomorrow? [19:55] namaste eac [19:55] what was it? [19:55] It's 'Howdy-Doody' time. My gin and tonic are calling. Bye. [19:55] fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca8-16.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [19:55] bye fat! [19:55] are you operating under the assumption that concepts have extermnal causes (love, morality, law, etc)? if so, i got a question [19:55] sure...fatjac....enjoyed your argument....(smarter than the average bear...eigh) [19:55] So want does anyone thing about Gen. 1 and 2 being edited from 2 sources [19:56] not here....... [19:56] So, I was having a discussion with a christian this morning, who claims the bible does NOT preach a firey hell. I an not christian, but I say that it does. What do y'all think? [19:56] you see..... Plover....they feed such data into a computer..I hear....in fact...all 5 books of the Pentetauh (spelling?) [19:56] Z, depends on what part [19:56] a thought is only as valid as its souce [19:57] source [19:57] Plover...do you know what the computer said? [19:57] Zen- from my experience, the bible canot be taken literally at all [19:57] What, n [19:57] plover: he said that there was no firey hell at any point, and I pointed to Jude 1:7 which certainly seems to refer to one. [19:57] interesting....Plover....same author....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm [19:57] of course, at that point, he claimed that Jude 1:7 was symbolic. [19:57] Gen and Ex -- 2 different authors [19:58] karen-3 (ajanssen@irv-ca12-17.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for karen-3[irv-ca12-17.ix.netcom.com] [19:58] of course...I would conjucture....that if the entire Bible were feed into a computer and asked who the author was....the computer would reply....same author [19:58] The order of creation is different [19:58] Then the computer would be wrong [19:58] hmmmmmmmm....really [19:58] Yes, read it [19:58] plo- based on/ [19:58] newsong: that is ridiculous. there are many styles in the bible. one would never conclude that Isaiah and Job for instance were written by the same person. [19:59] plo- based on? [19:59] Now was man created [19:59] hehehe....yes Zen...I understand.... [19:59] In Gds image or from dust [19:59] if the validity of thought is based on random chance,one can not use it to argue anything [19:59] dharma (stockjim@ left #Apologetics. [19:59] x-thats not what i asked. do concepts have an external source? [20:00] well lets see....Plover...does God have eyes...does man have eyes....does God hear...does man hear....does God have emotions...does man have emotions... [20:00] we think them [20:00] Does man remember...does God remember [20:00] no [20:00] Be serious [20:00] ah well. gotta go. bye [20:00] EAC4105 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) left irc: Leaving [20:00] Theophan (cjordan@lkf0183.deltanet.com) joined #Apologetics. [20:00] Does man deny god, does god deny man? [20:01] huh, Z [20:01] depends upon which god you are invoking..Zen [20:01] No comment on Gen 1 and 2? [20:01] how many gods are there? [20:01] There is only one God....but many gods...or dieties.... [20:02] gen 1 and 2 were not necessarily written by more than one person, yet they are obviously two tellings of the same myth, interwoven into one reading. [20:02] right, Z, but 2 different names of Gd are used in each story [20:03] At any rate that creation story had 2 variant forms we know of [20:04] so plver have we determined wether athe creater exists? [20:05] what troubles you exactly about the 2 creation stories...Plover...? [20:05] Action: Xpressor types poorly [20:05] No we are talking about weather the bible represents Him [20:06] so the creator exists? [20:06] Im not troubled, look at the order of creation, man in particular [20:07] yeah...don't get your point [20:07] plover,does the creator exist? [20:07] sorry i have to stay with apoint [20:07] if possible [20:08] You you see the 2 orders? [20:08] what 2 orders...? [20:08] Action: ZenRookie never thought that proving (if that were possible) that a creator existed was necessarily the same as proving God exists. They do not have to be the same intity. [20:08] entity. [20:08] In 1 man is created last correct [20:08] man and woman together [20:08] Plover..activiate the bot for the verses you're looking at [20:09] i'll go away if you'll answer me [20:09] Dont know how, but you can [20:09] i'll go away if you dont .. just thought it would be nice [20:10] About the creator, X [20:10] the 2nd creation account is a amplification of the first.....data that God...so to speak..zero's in on... [20:10] Hardly, it is very different [20:10] newsong, however, in the second creation story, the order of events is different. that is not an amplification but a contradiction, no? [20:10] He's just amplifies the information about man...which is his crowning point of creation... [20:11] new, what do you do are you a student? [20:11] where do you see the order different?????? [20:12] did you read the verses? [20:12] The 1st puts man on the 6th day....does it say man was created on a different day? [20:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [20:12] why? [20:12] lets look at the verses [20:12] !niv gen 2 4 [20:12] in chapter 1, all the animals come before adamn, in chapter 2 god made the animals after adam to be his companions. [20:12] Theophan (cjordan@lkf0183.deltanet.com) left #Apologetics. [20:13] give me the verse that states such...Zen... [20:13] Zen very good, Adam fails to find a mate in the 2nd amoung the animals [20:13] and so Eve is created [20:14] Gen 1:24 God creates animals, Gen 1:27 God creates Man. Gen 2:7 God makes man, Gen 2:19 God makes animals [20:14] the 2nd account is looking at the same picture...from a different angle.... [20:14] i love that "different angle" argument. it can ignore all kinds of stuff. [20:14] but, have fun ignoring the facts, i must go eat. [20:14] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left irc: Read error to ZenRookie[blackhole.dimensional.com]: Connection reset by peer [20:15] In the context of the verse...God is saying Adam is the one who named the animals....God makes the point that He..God...made the animals...and they were brought to Adam for their naming... [20:15] the proof of God is the impossibility of the opposite [20:15] the proof of God is the impossibility of the opposite  [20:15] hehehe....there is no opposite to God! [20:16] why did you ask if I was a student....Plover? [20:17] You should be able to decern the 2 different orders [20:17] ok...explain... [20:18] We already did [20:18] oh...since I do not see 2 different orders in the light you do...I am, therefore, a student? [20:18] So you see the 2 orders [20:19] your terminology.... [20:20] But here is what I don't comprehend....if you would be so kind....the point of the 2 different orders (as you say) is what? [20:20] 2 differnet sources [20:20] 2 different authors [20:21] So because you believe there are 2 sources...and 2 authors...what conclusion does that bring you to? [20:21] yo=you to [20:21] opps...lag... [20:21] That Moses didnt write it for one [20:22] i'll be bright back.. [20:22] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com) left #apologetics. [20:22] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com) joined #apologetics. [20:22] So your conclusion with you hypothesis is? [20:22] ok... [20:22] it doesnt say they were created in a different order [20:22] That Moses didnt write it for one [20:22] that's my point X... [20:22] it just sez that he did create them [20:22] ok...1st point...and... [20:23] ditto..Xpressor... [20:23] i think your reading in to the text [20:23] i think your reading in to the text [20:23] he did create them? [20:23] it doesnt say they were created in a different order [20:23] it just sez that he did create them [20:23] Plover...1st point Moses didn't write it for one....and then that conclusion leads to? [20:23] he...being? [20:24] it doesnt say "then he created" [20:24] It implies it is man creation [20:24] merely "he did [20:24] !niv 4 4 [20:24] !niv Gen 4 4 [20:24] on what do you base that [20:25] there no reason to assume [20:25] that [20:25] huh? [20:25] 1st creation account....Created used......2nd creation account...made used...different terms [20:25] !niv gen 4 4 [20:26] Plover...do you have a bible? [20:26] yes [20:26] i may get bumped out any time now [20:26] gen 4:4...says.....WHEN the Lord God MADE the earth and the heavens... [20:26] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) left #apologetics. [20:26] so dont think me rude if i disapear [20:27] yes he did but it doesnot specify when [20:27] yep...don't see the term "created" in 2nd chapter at all... [20:27] why...X...will you get bumped? [20:28] As compared with Gen 1:1...In the beginning god CREATED.... [20:28] God [20:28] Plover...are you there? [20:28] yes [20:29] what?? [20:29] your 1st point was...Moses didn't write Genesis...you say....and then from there your conclusions are? [20:29] That Gen and Ex were from 2 sources [20:30] @@gen 2:19 [20:30] o h well [20:30] westmnstr (jds@dp-2-34.iglou.net) joined #apologetics. [20:30] yes...that you stated...therefore, you say Moses didn't write...but from there you are not stating your conclusions [20:30] BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics. [20:30] CTCP SOUND: GREMLIN1.WAV from BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) to #apologetics [20:30] out of the ground thelord God [20:30] CTCP SOUND: GREMLIN2.WAV from BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) to #apologetics [20:31] I don't get your conclusion or the connection...as a student, of course [20:31] hi [20:31] formed every beast [20:31] it doesnt say when [20:31] CTCP SOUND: BIGDADDY.WAV from BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) to #apologetics [20:31] CTCP SOUND: DEADCAT.WAV from BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) to #apologetics [20:31] i dont see what the problem is [20:32] It is only part or an argument [20:32] of an [20:32] the 2 accounts do not differ [20:33] because of the words created and made? [20:33] so have we determined that we cannot argue the absence of the creator? [20:34] sorry guys...traffic on my channel...brb [20:34] BkakSheep (BobKersh@slip3.worldaxes.com) left #apologetics. [20:34] we have [20:34] {{{{{{{{{{{{sioux}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} [20:35] i get 6 hrs a day [20:35] i think im over it ?!?!?! [20:36] is the arguement ..the order of creation? [20:37] i dont see why you assume that [20:38] is it that you think the order of creation is different? [20:38] and if they were what dif would it make? [20:38] and ..is there a creator? [20:39] it doesnt make a very good part [20:39] westmnstr (jds@dp-2-34.iglou.net) left #apologetics. [20:39] is there a dif? [20:40] between makin a cow and creatin one? [20:41] is this a frankinstien cow or what? [20:41] im sorry i dont get it [20:42] please enlighten me ...im so confused [20:43] hello? [20:43] hello [20:44] lagged sorry [20:45] Xpressor (kgb@slip4.worldaxes.com) left irc: Read error to Xpressor[slip4.worldaxes.com]: EOF from client [20:47] Plover..sorry...i'm over on my channel...hopefully we can talk again.. [20:50] ok Im also on another channel [20:53] Plover (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_4_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank